OK. I've updated the build process to produce javadocs (but only under -Papache-release, to keep development builds going faster).
Running this for the 1st time on uimaj-core produced >400 warnings... (the Javadocs on internals haven't been invested in ...) -Marshall On 9/5/2013 6:50 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > So I suppose this means that we should create JavaDoc artifacts in the > future: > > 2x +1 (Richard, Peter) > 1x +0 (Marschall) > > No other votes ;) > > -- Richard > > On 30.08.2013, at 10:46, Peter Klügl <pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote: > >> On 29.08.2013 23:40, Marshall Schor wrote: >>> We have our multi-module builds set up so that >>> >>> a) Javadocs are run just for the publicly-viewable apis >>> b) not run for individual sub-modules (e.g., not for uimaj-core). >>> >>> Many releases ago, we did not even publish modules (other than maven >>> plugins) to >>> maven-central - we just did binary convenience builds, and source releases, >>> published to the Apache Mirroring system. >>> >>> Gradually, (as of uimaj release 2.3.1) we conformed more to the Maven normal >>> conventions, and we started making our individual projects available on >>> maven >>> central, although without javadocs. >>> >>> We could "turn on" javadoc creation for individual modules (probably only >>> under >>> the -Papache-release profile, to make development builds go faster). I >>> think >>> these would (by default - need to investigate) be "full" javadocs. >>> >>> Richard suggests we do this, I'm +0 on this (not convinced that the >>> Javadocs are >>> of actual interest to anyone, and they take up space -- but I guess that's >>> old-fashioned thinking :-)). >>> >>> Other opinions? >> +1 >> >> (not that ruta has javadocs yet) >> >> Peter >> >>> -Marshall
